Jump to content

Remarkable and yet distorted view on foxes.


Guest Stacka

Recommended Posts

To think that nature is ever in balance is a mistake. Nature is in a permanent arms race, with evolution in the driving seat. When predators eat themselves out of house and home, many will perish until the prey species reproduces. By the same token, prey species left unchecked will also eat themselves out of house and home. A good example is the 'study' SNH have carried out on the sheep in St Kilda. Numbers build up over a period of years until food becomes critical. Bad winters then thin out those who are weakest, the sick and the old. Further, it leaves the whole herd very susceptible to disease. Death for them is never nice, its starvation over weeks.

What those who believe that nature looks after itself fail to see or understand is that is the death that awaits all species when under similar pressure. The idea of a 'nice' death is foolish to put it mildly. Far better to have a good man with a rifle thin the population humanely that let the target species suffer.

One other thing; it has become popular to deny that we as hunters enjoy killing things. Utter drivel, I get a great deal of satisfaction from doing the job and I am not ashamed to say so. It is something so deeply ingrained in us as a species that most if not all have it although many deny that because they have never had the education, opportunity or need to hunt. After all, even the greenest of environmentalists will swat a fly or mosquito and to that mosquito or fly life is every bit as important as it is to the fox, rabbit or deer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

One other thing; it has become popular to deny that we as hunters enjoy killing things. Utter drivel, I get a great deal of satisfaction from doing the job and I am not ashamed to say so. It is something so deeply ingrained in us as a species that most if not all have it although many deny that because they have never had the education, opportunity or need to hunt. After all, even the greenest of environmentalists will swat a fly or mosquito and to that mosquito or fly life is every bit as important as it is to the fox, rabbit or deer.

Precisely my point, we hunt first and foremost for pleasure, I never understand people who try and justify their actions by listing all the benefits of their actions. If you follow that conclusion the same people wouldn't be bothered if a method was developed that could control deer/fox populations without the need to hunt them with a rifle after all "they only do it to manage the deer population, take no pleasure in killing them, only do it for welfare issues" or "I only shoot nuisance foxes as it is an essential job to keep the numbers down". B*****ks - we all hunt/kill for pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cleary there are informed and less informed,rational and emoy=tional views on these topics. Some of the posts here have raised good points too.It is complex,when we get into 'technicalities ' of population dynamics,and very complex when human motivations come in. A few comments,so far -as I say,interesting and some of these merit a bit of thought from time to time.

 

Hauptman: I wasn't sure what your "self regulating' idea would be,that applied 600 million years ago-were there any 'human selfs' around then,or if later,when did the capacity for reflective self regulation come in-we can assume Moses needed it!

 

Bewsh: the 'apex predator' idea is a good one,but human apex predation is unique in that the human has some understanding-certainly 'since Moses' -of what he (as it usually is) is doing,even why;and -unlike all other predators is at least in more recent times relatively isolated from the effects,especially of over predation-worst case scenario for hunters is the prey species might get some protection legally.

But the idea that 'conservation means good management' ( often enough to reverse the effects of poor non-management in the past-ask the bison!) is a good one-with human predation,the 'trophic cascade' is often way beyond anything 'nature' can produce- again,ask the bison,as you can't ask the passenger pigeons-all gone. When I did this sort of study -early in the sixties-I was fortunate enough to have lectures at Edinburgh University from then academic leaders in the application of the concepts (eg in East Africa)-the genetics from the future "Dolly the sheep" department were pretty avant garde too.

 

Missed: some interesting points,though I suspect hunters may differ in the extent to which they 'enjoy' killing.You say it is 'deeply ingrained'-but if so,would not many more hunt to kill-in UK it's really quite a small minority.Likewise if those who deny 'pleasure in killing' really had this deeply ingrained,why would they need 'education' to kill for pleasure? That 'education' is needed,rather suggests a learning component-given the resistance to the idea most non hunters do experience given an 'opportunity'. And I'd have thought 'swatting a fly' evidences the removal of a nuisance,rather than any enjoyment....hardly a moral leap forward,but different enough...

 

Cumbrian: your idea that 'we' hunt for pleasure is more plausible in most cases. Benefits-to other humans and the prey species are usually secondary,and even serendipitous (with a few local exceptions-eg culling a predatory poultry fox). Probably very few shoot 'to manage a species,or for population welfare"-one acid test for that would be (just imagine) if research showed that singing to threatened populations in the evening somehow helped them stabilise healthliy-now,would shooters be out there lullabying,having disposed of their field rifles?? I don't think so ,either.

Some may hunt ffor 'free food'-try costing it realistically-or because it is 'good reason' to posses firearms,which are just liked,or some complex mixture of motives,often changing over time.Complex,because 'target might cover some,but clearly isn't sufficient for some shooters.

 

OK,all in the spirit of self learning,and maybe even a clearer appraisal that can be used to justify some shooting -if held to account ( as will be the antis-) " we must account (for the game of today) to those who follow us.") Good conservaton management seems the best way.

Appeals to 'hunter evolution' or 'human nature' are ....err....dodgy,since by no means universal,and as Katherine Hepburn's teetotal character,having ditched the bottles overboard,tells the hapless Humphrey Bogart now ex gin swilling captain of the 'African Queen'": "Human nature is what God put us on this earth to rise above". Hmmmm....anyone who disagrees,...Go to the jungle,do not spend £200 in Tesco. :-)

 

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know how many non hunters you have taken hunting Gbal, but every single one I have ever taken out in over forty plus years has been rather surprised at just how much they enjoyed the experience. By the same token, many who choose to deny that they enjoy hunting, and by default killing are not dissimilar to to the Victorians who, publicly at least, denied they actually enjoyed sex!

I have been told by one individual that I am worse that a paedophile because I cause suffering. When asked if the individual had ever been shot, the answer was 'of course not, what does that have to do with anything?'' When told that it had everything to do with the understanding of the pain of being shot, the reply was that everyone knows being shot hurts. Well it does not, at least not for everybody. Ignorance and perceptions are every bit as damaging, if not more so, to our way of life as any admission that we actually enjoy what we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stacka,I wold be inclined to accept that 'being shot hurts' is pretty much a given-and I think of those who risk it on our behalf as generallly pretty tough,rather than rough.

Missed-I have some serious doubts that if you took some IS believer out,he'd come readily round to 'your'/our way of thinking. Perhaps Stacka will let us know.....

The claim that some people not radically opposed to hunting might become more accepting is not,to me ,in doubt...but not all would,and the stronger their informed opposition,the lesslikely it would be.Maybe you have escorted more 'not sure' than seriously informed people who have good reasons for opposing some hunting-and there are such good reasons. There are some arguments to put on the other side,of course.

There are also several,some subtle or unexpected,aspects to hunting that might be a revelation.It really does not matter for the key issue-most people are not 'genetically' or 'culturally' predisposed to want to hunt-perhaps we can come to some agreement on that-unless you have taken out the majority of the otherwise non voluntarily participating population?

Analogies with Victorian sexual attitudes-I asssume you have not actually indulged with many Victorians-almost certainly fewer.that my hunting guests-are largely irrelevant-the key words are ' at least inpublic' and are so often 'observed in the breach' as to descend into speculation/ pop Freudianism,and that I have some knowledge of-poor Freud has been somewhat misinterpreted.

Not the issue-as I said,you had some points-every reasonable survey and study and ...errr personal conversation -supports the view that -at least in our culture-enjoyment (even of sex) varies.Not I am told,just with me. So I was suggesting that 'enjoyment of killing' might vary.Personal is limited,but I didn't get a kick from killing always-more eating,and all the 'being out' using a powerful rifle (and the freudian cheapo is simplistic too,I think.....). I actually stopped stalking when the crosshairs were on a stag,and I thought I'd enjoy seeing his progeny run free,far more than squeezing the trigger....and so would more other peopl,mostly tourists.. My personal road to Damascus.but completely inconsistent with explaining to some stalkers/estate owner,and a 'killing enjoyment'.

Missed,all I said was that the 'killing enjoyment' probably varied-since you seem to offer little other than personal anecdotes,my 'foxing guru' -a keeper,'the resident vulpicide' came to think that was 'a young man's game'- despite some distinctly un-victorian moonlight experiences with his girlfriend out on vulpine control when younger.

I did think it honest to put your personal view,but somewhat overgeneralised to attribute it to all hunters,without some acknowledgement that it may vary/is a bit more complex.I'll agree that when you do not wish to kill,you stop hunting.That change has to be an acquired one,so not "unchangeably ingrained".

That is the point- humans have choice-at least some do,and all should.

That's not to say we should not be grateful to those who continue,especially on our behalf-and preferably don't get shot doing so. Be nice if they didn't have to shoot either,but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

The central point is not that people can't change their minds,or that they all will-some are after all,reasoned and plausible-but that when it is a deep belief( right or wrong,notice) it don't change easy. Anything that is true of less than 1% of a population(FAC eg) is unlikely to be 'deeply ingrained' in that culture. Paedophilia 'analogies' are just nonsensical/irrelevant here,if that helps.

 

atb

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not disagreeing with much of what you say, however having worked with quite a few who were shot, myself included and done some work in later life regarding terminal ballistics in a military context; there are as many that feel nothing when being shot as those that feel pain. On the other hand being close to the seat of an IED as it functioned is a somewhat different experience.
It is easy to find exceptions in all walks of life; you mentioned some of the more radical followers of Islam, however the same could be said about fundamentalist Christians or for that matter those that supported a non religious ideology. I firmly believe that given the opportunity, many of those that profess to be against hunting are not quite as bothered about it when they see the other side. By the same token as your religious example, there will be those that will never agree. Such is life.

Having said that, I enjoy hunting, I have no qualms about killing and I will not be cowed into pretending that I only do it because it is the conclusion of the hunt. Having spent time hunting with various indigenous tribes around the world, I found that in general the same feeling applied to those hunter gatherers although some gave spiritual significance to the act. This was especially true of the Iban and Dyaks regarding the issue of human heads. Such is life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely my point, we hunt first and foremost for pleasure, I never understand people who try and justify their actions by listing all the benefits of their actions. If you follow that conclusion the same people wouldn't be bothered if a method was developed that could control deer/fox populations without the need to hunt them with a rifle after all "they only do it to manage the deer population, take no pleasure in killing them, only do it for welfare issues" or "I only shoot nuisance foxes as it is an essential job to keep the numbers down". B*****ks - we all hunt/kill for pleasure.

Well i cannot speak for anyone else, but i certainly do not get pleasure from Killing anything, My pleasure is obtained from pitting my wits against my quarry, being out in the countryside, using my skills to do the job in the most humane way possible, For me it is my work, the actual act of killing saddens me somewhat. Also i do only kill/control when asked to do so against a species that is posing a problem in some way. I do think going out and shooting several foxes in an evening just to keep numbers down, just in case they become troublesome, is rather a questionable thing.

I am sorry but in my opinion someone who actually takes pleasure from the act of killing anything, should take a step back, and ask him/herself some searching questions. As i said just my humble opinion and view on things.

Adrian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just got in from dealing with an ongoing fox problem at a free range egg farm. I shot four tonight, five last week and I kill several foxes there every month. Tonight, the first fox got a strike in and ran with her prize...not very far though. There is nothing sporting about it. NV and thermal equipment make it eradication, not hunting.

 

I personally feel a bit sorry for the foxes. The cubs are enticed in by hunger, only to get snuffed out before having any sort of life, by a human using equipment they have no hope of out smarting. However, I am protecting someone's livelihood. If we want hens to be free range, it means they are an easy target for predators and something has to give. I don't enjoy killing, I have a job to do.

 

Atb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting shot hurts trust me

I can confirm this , it hurt me allot . I was hit directly in the thigh . And i did yelp quite loud ! lol . Now i was shocked to turn around to see my friend laughing his tits off , he had loaded candle wax in to the barrel of a spring piston air rifle , initially it didn't come out until it probably cooled enough and thwack ! It put a dent in my jeans and i was bleeding but it didn't really penetrate , but bruised . Hit by real bullets ? I couldn't say ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well put,Achosenman.

"Free range'' sounds great,and probably is for the poultry-and the egg flavour-but there are consequences-like easy predation.

So action has to be taken.

 

Missed-this is the kind of simple but basic point/counterpoint that can sway opinion when it is pointed out-agreed;but extreme views of any sort are very much harder to shift.

And of course,

"build a safe fence' etc etc would be options too (and pay more for eggs...' and so it goes on...

I spent a career in advanced education-and there is generlally a good probability of a fair hearing-at that level of open mindedness. Elsewhere,much less optimistic about the option or the capacity. "Bambi" probably is balanceable with fuller info,"IS" currently probably not,nor did the Inquisition quickly apologise-let's not go into religion-save to perhaps agree that it is intrasigent when extreme.Alas,big stick come into play,when talking quietly doesn't work,and the issue is core value threatening.

Interesting point too about indigenous populations- a course in social anthropolgy is a revelation- the plains Indians had advanced views on 'sustainable' hunting,though had no effective technology to wipe out the bison. For the 'hunter' (gatherers),it isn't a choice,more a survival imperative-which,of course it is not for us (It's probably quite an expensive way to get animal protein,if fully accounted.)

 

There is a good scene in Hombre where white Paul Newman,raised by Apache, smashes the face of a prejudiced bully at the bar,and the bar tender says "You savage" - and gets the reply "I was thinking in English".

Made for a decent lecture on langage,thinking,values and indigenous populations!

 

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree gbal, the folks who rage against controlling fox numbers will be the first to rage against the inflated price of eggs should a fox proof fence be erected. The site I look after is forty acres. They have sheep mesh fencing all round the perimeters with electric wire on pigtail standoffs top and bottom. It doesn't work that well TBH. I would hate to think what price a 6ft chicken fence, with an 18 inch overhang on top plus the bottom mesh dug in and out would be, but I bet business finances would change somewhat. I'd also bet ££ to pinch of salt that the supermarkets wouldn't absorb the cost either.

 

Atb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your doing it wrong then

Cant fault that one. :)

O*** was running about for quite some time before he realised that he had one go through both legs which caused some humour at the time. Having said that, even the best drill and skills do not keep you from avoiding the lead hornets. Every day a school day mucker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i cannot speak for anyone else, but i certainly do not get pleasure from Killing anything, My pleasure is obtained from pitting my wits against my quarry, being out in the countryside, using my skills to do the job in the most humane way possible, For me it is my work, the actual act of killing saddens me somewhat. Also i do only kill/control when asked to do so against a species that is posing a problem in some way. I do think going out and shooting several foxes in an evening just to keep numbers down, just in case they become troublesome, is rather a questionable thing.

I am sorry but in my opinion someone who actually takes pleasure from the act of killing anything, should take a step back, and ask him/herself some searching questions. As i said just my humble opinion and view on things.

Adrian

Hi Adrian,

The point I was trying to make is that killing is inextricably part of hunting, not all hunts end in a kill and many a blank stalk can be pleasurable. My point is that we hunt first and foremost for pleasure, and a successful hunt results in a kill, but to kill for the sake of killing is not my game i.e. A deer tethered to a post. There was a famous philosper (Greek I think) who said something along the lines of "we do not hunt to kill but in order to hunt we must kill".

 

I get great pleasure out of an exiting stalk and take pride in getting the job done right i.e. A clean humane kill. What I find odd is people who claim that their primary motive for stalking is to simply manage the population to its advantage and not to hunt for pleasure. I think any one that sees the sport as simply a job or chore needs a new hobby.

 

One of my closest friends is a ranger at kielder and he culls nearly 300 roe a year he says that he never tires of his job and guess what on his days off he goes hunting, whether it is with the shotgun or boar in Germany. He would never say that he simply sees deer stalking as a job but sees it as a passionate sport and one that he is fortunate to be able to do as a full time job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each to his own.

 

He has a nice garden, note that the foxes are kept caged bit have plenty of room and dont look in any way distressed. I am glad he does not live near me as I would hate to shoot his friend.

 

Be interesting to hear what the thoughts of his wife are.

 

All in all he has that fox doing things I would not have thought possible, no doubt he has reared it from a cub, good luck to him and his fox.

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One of my closest friends is a ranger at kielder and he culls nearly 300 roe a year he says that he never tires of his job and guess what on his days off he goes hunting, whether it is with the shotgun or boar in Germany. He would never say that he simply sees deer stalking as a job but sees it as a passionate sport and one that he is fortunate to be able to do as a full time job.

 

 

Give him 20 years and he will.

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite simple fox in the country side need shooting or hunting. And you can't fence round lambs in a sheep fild or calfs or piglets. Sory but even talking about shows the difrance between people in the country who have to make a living out of farming and those that don't. Wether some one enjoys shooting or hunting doesn't matter a dead fox is a good fox.

I'm 4th generation on our farm we ain't going soft on predators just because some fox huggers bot a tame one. There used to be a farm worker who had a tame jack daw and a tame rat so what its not new.

Still like to see a tame badger though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite simple fox in the country side need shooting or hunting. And you can't fence round lambs in a sheep fild or calfs or piglets. Sory but even talking about shows the difrance between people in the country who have to make a living out of farming and those that don't. Wether some one enjoys shooting or hunting doesn't matter a dead fox is a good fox.

I'm 4th generation on our farm we ain't going soft on predators just because some fox huggers bot a tame one. There used to be a farm worker who had a tame jack daw and a tame rat so what its not new.

Still like to see a tame badger though!

 

You are right , 99% of anti hunting / vermin control bunny huggers are either townies or "nouveau countryside dwellers" , they have never had to make a living from farming or any other countryside based business , my wifes mate (townie) thinks I`m evil for knocking off foxes and does not believe they kill chickens and other livestock , fcuk knows what she thinks they live on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stacka

I took on a recent job where by a lady had accused her neighbours dog (my father in law) of killing all her chickens and beheading them.

 

I was called in to have a look, first thing that came to mind was fox. When I told her what I thought she replied "can't be, foxes don't come this far into the country do they"

 

Typical Townie response. Thus she got charged townie rates for me to get rid of said foxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Montey: you could try "The wind in the Willows" ,written by Kenneth Grahame in 1909-but even in this anthropomorphised tale Mr Badger remains a gruff and solitary loner who "simply hates society".

However in 1909,Teddy Rooseveldt wrote KG to tell him "(I've) read and reread it and come to accept the characters as old friends". President Roosevelt previously establish the first and magnificent Yellowstone National Park,for native wildlife.He also shot a lot of animals. Complex,or what?

 

SWS: recent research shows that " 99% of claims that use a 99% figure in generalisations" are likely to be inaccurate.... :-)

 

I don't disagree in general-indeed made the point earlier that predator proof 'fencing' was economically impractical,though not always a daft suggestion,more naive at the fox/poultry level,at least. I grew up in the country,then spent sometime in city based Ivory Towers,suppose I'm nw retro nouveau again for 25 years. Some townies are pretty savvy,even those who work in University Agriculture or Wildlife Management Departments,and not all country dwellers are unprogressive yokells,but not very close to 99% in either case.

I doubt that we progress anything of value by simple overstatement,while empathising with one of my farming permissions who,in exasperation,asked me to shoot 'all the woolly horned bu**ers-we're going into free range rabbit farming,it must be bl**dy easier!"

 

g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Montey: you could try "The wind in the Willows" ,written by Kenneth Grahame in 1909-but even in this anthropomorphised tale Mr Badger remains a gruff and solitary loner who "simply hates society".

However in 1909,Teddy Rooseveldt wrote KG to tell him "(I've) read and reread it and come to accept the characters as old friends". President Roosevelt previously establish the first and magnificent Yellowstone National Park,for native wildlife.He also shot a lot of animals. Complex,or what?

 

SWS: recent research shows that " 99% of claims that use a 99% figure in generalisations" are likely to be inaccurate.... :-)

 

I don't disagree in general-indeed made the point earlier that predator proof 'fencing' was economically impractical,though not always a daft suggestion,more naive at the fox/poultry level,at least. I grew up in the country,then spent sometime in city based Ivory Towers,suppose I'm nw retro nouveau again for 25 years. Some townies are pretty savvy,even those who work in University Agriculture or Wildlife Management Departments,and not all country dwellers are unprogressive yokells,but not very close to 99% in either case.

I doubt that we progress anything of value by simple overstatement,while empathising with one of my farming permissions who,in exasperation,asked me to shoot 'all the woolly horned bu**ers-we're going into free range rabbit farming,it must be bl**dy easier!"

 

g

 

So what percentage of those generalisations are inaccurate ? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are right , 99% of anti hunting / vermin control bunny huggers are either townies or "nouveau countryside dwellers" , they have never had to make a living from farming or any other countryside based business , my wifes mate (townie) thinks I`m evil for knocking off foxes and does not believe they kill chickens and other livestock , fcuk knows what she thinks they live on.

Unfortunately experience has shown this generalisation to be very, very true; certainly about those that migrate to this neck of the woods. I had rather an amusing experience some years ago after a strict vegan and his rather odd family moved out here. Now, normally those who see the place in summer and decide that this is the place to retire to come in the spring and by the end of winter the saner ones have decided its not quite as appealing as the romantic view would suggest. The nuttier ones stay a bit longer and this was the case with this crowd. Over the first summer and winter they took to feeding the herring and Black backed gulls, who, deciding upon a good thing decided to hang about for the easy food.

 

The following spring our intrepid explores hens had some chicks which lasted less than 24 hours. Undeterred he built a coop of chicken wire and plywood and tried again. Black backs are no weaklings and deprived his family of their next generation of chooks in no time, much to the horror of the children who had no idea what these birds ate other than bread! The black backs also took seven cygnets from the pair of swans that nested in the foreshore close to their house.

 

The following year our gallant veggy approached me and asked me to kill the gulls as they were 'torturing his birds and his children'. I refused and explained that the reason the damn gulls were there was because he had trained them with food over the winter. If he wanted them sorted he should do it himself. He left the following spring.

 

Like those that want to live out here, many of these people have no concept of the reality of nature: everything is food for something and nature has no compassion, it is just nature. We are part of that and we need to eat so some of us get others to kill on our behalf and become very smug about the whole affair. Others, myself included kill what we need and I can tell you, it is considerably cheaper for me to shoot wildlife, raise my own stock for home slaughter and butcher everything than it is to go across a fairly substantial body of water to get to shops. So yes, when I kill something it makes me somewhat happy insofar as I know that is more food for to cover me over the winter, it certainly does not make me sad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sadly apex predators (of which we are the worst) don't self regulate in the same way as tertiary organisms or those below the apex.

Foxes are no different.

When natural food sources, resources and space run out they adapt and expand into new areas, deplete new food stocks and remove the resources that other lower organisms rely on....

 

Ring any bells?!

 

Predator control is essential to maintaining biodiversity in an environment which is far from natural

 

We are not talking about an untouched environment where everything balances out in the long run

 

The thing is the fox is not an Apex predator, it is a meso predator that should sit below the apex predators in the food chain but we have removed the apex predators (other than ourselves). This is the same argument I had with an anti a little while ago and the key one they cannot or choose not to grasp; show me a totally natural habitat or ecosystem in the UK and I'll be able to show you one that doesn't need its wildlife managed. Simple fact is there aren't any and therefore all ecosystems and their wildlife need to be managed by humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Lumensmini.png

IMG-20230320-WA0011.jpg

CALTON MOOR RANGE (2) (200x135).jpg

bradley1 200.jpg

NVstore200.jpg

blackrifle.png

jr_firearms_200.gif

valkyrie 200.jpg

tab 200.jpg

Northallerton NSAC shooting.jpg

RifleMags_200x100.jpg

dolphin button4 (200x100).jpg

CASEPREP_FINAL_YELLOW_hi_res__200_.jpg

rovicom200.jpg



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy